Posted on 12/06/2008 9:43:49 PM PST by pissant
The continuing efforts of a fringe group of conservatives to deny Obama his victory and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president is embarrassing and destructive. The fact that these efforts are being led by Alan Keyes, an unhinged demagogue on the political fringe who lost a senate election to the then unknown Obama by 42 points should be a warning in itself.
This tempest over whether Obama, the child of an American citizen, was born on American soil is tantamount to the Democrats' seditious claim that Bush "stole" the election in Florida and hence was not the legitimate president. This delusion helped to create the Democrats' Bush derangement syndrome and encouraged Democratic leaders to lie about the origins of the Iraq War, and regard it as illegitimate as Bush himself. It became "Bush's War" rather than an American War with destructive consequences for our troops and our cause.
The Birth Certificate zealots are essentially arguing that 64 million voters should be disenfranchised because of a contested technicality as to whether Obama was born on U.S. soil. (McCain narrowly escaped the problem by being born in the Panama Canal zone, which is no longer American.)
What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on US soil? Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the Constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for President trumps all others. But how viable will our Constitution be if 5 Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?
Conservatives are supposed to respect the organic nature of human societies. Ours has been riven by profound disagreements that have been deepening over many years. We are divided not only about political facts and social values, but also about what the Constitution itself means. The crusaders on this issue choose to ignore these problems and are proposing to deny the will of 64 million voters by appealing to 5 Supreme Court Justices (since no one is delusional enough to think that the 4 liberal justices are going to take the presidency away from Obama). What kind of conservatism is this?
It is not conservatism; it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation. Conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election, and get over it; and get on with the important business of reviving our country's economy and defending its citizens, and -- by the way -- its Constitution.
Right! the law means nothing! Just ignore it!
Its rare that they totally ignore the more intellectual part of their audience,especially the part that feeds them their daily bread.US!!
Someone/something has gotten to them.I wish I knew what or whom.
Logic doesn’t prevail here, as you and I both realize.
<p?
Yes, it ought to be routine to validate one’s eligibility for office, as you would for joining the military, getting college scholarships, or applying for a passport. It ought to be a no-brainer to require that people prove their identity before casting a ballot.
But only in America can the left get away with claiming that requiring ID “disenfranches” voters. What a crock. It is merely done to hide fraud.
And only in America can the left get away without having to prove Obama’s eligibility. Mark my words, not only the left but the entire world — the U.N., European newspapers, everyone — will demand that Obama take office anyway.
Sigh ...
If the four months of evidence I have seen,everything from Dr. Polarik on down is not enough for a full vetting of a potential potus candidate than what is.
But there is no doubt that, if he is what you think he is, that he will eventually have to be dealt with in the regular way for dealing with such persons.
Have you taken a look at the possibility that they're right and you're wrong?
Can happen, you know.
The law is the law if not distorted by WAY too much rhetoric and hurtles that can slow down the finding of the truth. Politicians love the law because loop holes are forever found. There is no law when law is ignored so often. Lets use illegal aliens as an example.
The supreme law says you must be natural born to be president. If it is a requirement, then so is the need to demonstrate it.
Obama’s word may be good enough for you, but it isn’t for any thinking conservative.
You're more or less correct about this.
But "burden of proof" in the political arena and before the bar of justice are two different things.
Before the voters, the burden was, as you say, on Obama.
Before a court, he must prove nothing.
NO COMPETENT AUTHORITY has asked for his birth certificate. No matter how many times you repeat what he "must do", until a competent authority asks for it and is refused, there's nothing here.
Crooked lawyers are always two different things.
The competent authority is the Constitution of the US. It is the only one that matters in this arena. It is not a “political” issue. It is a matter of the supreme law of the land.
Not really the issue.
The issue is why haven't the talkers at least explored the topic as an important news story for right wing bloggers without taking sides. That's called journalism. Not what the DBM practices which is called selective journalism.
According to you its OK for the heavy hitter right wing talkers to plagiarize our stuff constantly 24/7(which they do) but when they get one story they don't want to cover they just ignore it and it's supposed to be OK with us?
I don't think so.....
Ha ha ha!
I desperately hope you actually e-mailed this to a bunch of "Alleged Journalists"
You may well have coined a new acronym..."What a bunch of 'AJs'."
I think he is capable of it, but it would hurt him tremendously at this point to reveal that he has been playing a game. There is no good reason for him to have withheld his BC.
Bingo exactly!!
Horowitz demonstrates very sloppy thinking with several points of self contradiction. No coherent logical argument can be found in the article.
He suggests we are pushing this because we’re sore losers, but also because we want to uphold the constitutional requirement for presidential candidates, and then he asserts that such requirement is less important than majority rule and that it’s not conservative to give priority to the constitution.
Mr. Horowitz, you need to start again from the beginning and simply write a new essay. Please show that you understand the principles of our Constitution as well as the premise of your own argument. I think you should focus a lot more on clarity and consistency of logic.
“Right! the law means nothing! Just ignore it!”
Why not? Everyone else does! ACORN, Joe the Plumber, Brunner, Al Franken’s discovered ballots, Obama opening up of sealed divorce records to win an election, Zombie voters, campaign finance fraud, etc.
And now we should just ignore the constitution as well. Why? Well because that would upset the liberals who have their bright shiny candidate, and they might just burn down the city if we ask impolite questions.
Yeah, it is becoming very clear that the law means NOTHING.
It’s one thing to piss off a few conservatives it’s another to ignore the Supreme Court, if it comes to that.
A whole lotta bloodsucking politicians and their ilk should have their sux stfu—the absolute arrogance of so-called public officials is way outta hand, and has been for some time now.
http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/gunny-g-re-those-stinkin-basturds-in-congress-again/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.